Hi ----- Original Message ----- > Hi Marc, > > First of all, sorry again for late response! > > Last time I tried with your first version, I found few issues related > with reconnect, mainly on the acked_feautres lost. While checking your > new code, I found that you've already solved that, which is great. > > So, I tried harder this time, your patches work great, except that I > found few nits. > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:16:21PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > ... > > +Slave message types > > +------------------- > > + > > + * VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN: > > + Id: 1 > > + Master payload: N/A > > + Slave payload: u64 > > + > > + Request the master to shutdown the slave. A 0 reply is for > > + success, in which case the slave may close all connections > > + immediately and quit. > > Assume we are using ovs + dpdk here, that we could have two > vhost-user connections. While ovs tries to initiate a restart, > it might unregister the two connections one by one. In such > case, two VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN request will be sent, > and two replies will get. Therefore, I don't think it's a > proper ask here to let the backend implementation to do quit > here. >
On success reply, the master sent all the commands to finish the connection. So the slave must flush/finish all pending requests first. I think this should be enough, otherwise we may need a new explicit message? > > > > > switch (msg.request) { > > + case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN: { > > + uint64_t success = 1; /* 0 is for success */ > > + if (dev->stop) { > > + dev->stop(dev); > > + success = 0; > > + } > > + msg.payload.u64 = success; > > + msg.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64); > > + size = send(u->slave_fd, &msg, VHOST_USER_HDR_SIZE + msg.size, 0); > > + if (size != VHOST_USER_HDR_SIZE + msg.size) { > > + error_report("Failed to write reply."); > > + } > > + break; > > You might want to remove the slave_fd from watch list? We > might also need to close slave_fd here, assuming that we > will no longer use it when VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN is > received? Makes sense, I will change that in next update. > I'm asking because I found a seg fault issue sometimes, > due to opaque is NULL. > I would be interested to see the backtrace or have a reproducer. thanks